There have been many great accomplishments for the rag-tag, rebellious group I have been proud to work with in opposition to Measure B, the solar energy boondoggle that has unified not only city-wide Republicans and Democrats active in the neighborhood councils, but Laborer Union Locals throughout the city who are having city facility work normally set aside for them being transferred solely to the IBEW membership under Measure B. Our combined effort, combined with opposition endorsements from great civic leaders like Laura Chick and Dennis Zine, have resulted in recommendations to vote NO on Measure B from the Los Angeles Times, the L.A. Daily News and our local paper, the Daily Breeze.
To try and swing the tide from the city council members who are now embarrassed for "placing the measure on the ballot for voter to decide" to the DWP & IBEW's failure to address the calculated doubling of energy rates (according to their own endorsed Huron Report), the Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa (who desperately needs this measure passed in order to beef up his political resume for his run for Governor next year) had to initiate a city-wide bus tour this weekend in order to promote Measure B. Fox 11 News covered it last night, and interviewed one of our speakers, Jack Humpreville, about why the measure is having such difficulty.
I want to personally thank all of you that forced our 11% mayor to forgo his regular weekend schedule of finding the closest "televised" public event, away from any of the other mayoral candidates, and forcing him to actually invest personal time in campaigning this weekend. Your phone calls to absentee voters the past four weeks, plus your renewed energy this weekend to call poll voters in key districts, has made a real difference!
This past week, I was very excited to see the energy and activism by two local unions, the Laborers Local 802 and Local 872, who really took the Huron consultant and DWP managers to task at the Wilmington DWP Townhall last Wednesday. You can only imagine how much fun I had speaking on behalf of labor unions being shut out from what is supposed to be their contracted work effort in the city. To their credit, the Laborers Union members are the ones working at our trade schools and junior colleges to train young men and women the trades associated with building and construction, and have a far better record of providing training in under-privileged communities and community colleges. The marketing rep from the Laborers Union specifically asked the DWP about the record of bringing in and training new IBEW members from under-privileged neighborhoods. When the DWP rep "could not recall" the numbers, the marketing rep informed her that the numbers were "practically non-existent".
Now these great union colleagues are taking every phone list I can create for them and calling residents to oppose this measure on behalf of the truly local union residents. Awesome!
So if you see our Mayor's bus driving through the neighborhood, wave "Hello"! And then contact me for a call list to do either Sunday or Monday. But don't worry about the Mayor's precinct...we've already called it and left a message for his household to vote NO on Measure B!
After all, he is a high-propensity voter...
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
State Budget Resentment Electrifies GOP Convention
Thanks to my good friend and 56th AD GOP ex-oficio, Roger Garrett, I was once again able to participate as a delegate at the California Republican Party Convention in Sacramento this past weekend. As expected, the primary topic of discussion, debate, outrage and concern for most delegates was the defeat of Republican principles and values in the approval of the increased tax-and-spend budget bill by the state Legislature. I could spent most of this blog post talking about how angry people were, and I was even quoted in the Contra Costa Times on Saturday about that I called "very confusing times". "We have to figure out what our party stands for if it's not for less of a tax burden for Californians."
(Here's the link to the article: (http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_11752966?source=rss)
Well, friends, I'm writing to say that I was very proud of how unified our party delegates became this weekend. At the previous conventions I've attended, we've spent hours debating what I will now call secondary issues, including illegal immigration, abortion, gay marriage & affordable housing development. I'm not saying those topics are not important; but every delegate I talked to this weekend, whether from the CA Republican Assembly, the Log Cabin Republicans, the CA Congress of Republicans or the CA College Republicans, firmly agreed that our party's number one mission is to protect the California tax-payer. To his credit, Assemblymember Anthony Adams walked across the street from the Assembly hall to the Sacramento Hyatt to talk to delegates and address why he felt that approving this budget was the right choice. Fellow delegate Matt Kauble and I had a solid 20 minutes to ourselves with Adams, and kept it cordial yet engaging, despite the numerous gestures behind his back by delegates passing by us! (You can imagine what they looked like...) Adams talked about Moody ratings, liquidity, and other financial topics to test our knowledge. Matt is a finance controller, so I let Matt lead the engagement and I simply jumped in with inconsistencies. Adams stated that he would be willing to come down to L.A. County to address Republicans regarding this decision and to basically "take his lumps". I give him a lot of credit and respect for walking across the street and talking to whomever approached him. The other five were conveniently too busy to meet with fellow Republicans at their own convention and explain their actions. Of the five, it was to be expected of State Senator Abel Maldonado, who basically negotiated in his own political agenda into the bill in order to get his approval. Delegates throughout the party have reached a boiling point with these sell-outs, and were ready to hold all six accountable.
And they proved it on Sunday...
The only resolution forwarded to the delegates to consider was to withhold any party funding for re-election of the six Republican legislators that made the unfortunate and misguides decision to vote for the budget. As you can imagine, it was overwhelmingly and loudly approved.
At the Sunday general session, Republican Assemblyman, U.S. Senate candidate & my good friend Chuck DeVore regretted that he would not be able to spent his allotted ten minutes talking about how he was ready to defeat and retire Barbara Boxer, but he gave the delegates the details of what happened in the Assembly and his pledge to continue fighting the Democrats and misguided Republicans. State Senator Jeff Denham, who was targeted for a recall defeated by over 73% last year in a district formerly drawn for Democrats because he refused to stop attacking the Democrats on the budget over-spending issue, announced that not only is he not going away, he's running for Lieutenant Governor. (Here's a real opportunity to tell the special interests that they do not control Sacramento!) And Board of Equalization Member Bill Leonard offered an idea to beat the 2-year 1% sales tax hike coming on April 1st: Go out now and purchase two years worth of as many household items as you can! Should be easy for Costco and Sam's Club members!
The budget issue overshadowed the usual drama of the February convention, the election of chairman, vice-chairman and regional chairs for the CRP. However, the strength of the incumbents, including Chairman Ron Nehring and Vice-Chairman Tom Del Baccaro, allowed for delegates to discuss the gubernatorial race between Insurance Commissioner Stave Poizner and "new Republican" and former E-bay CEO Meg Whitman. The only drama for Los Angeles County was at our regional Vice-Chair caucus meeting Saturday morning, where the question was whether former RPLAC chairman, Dr. Carl Davis, was engineering another surprise candidate to oppose incumbent L.A. County Regional Vice-Chair Doug Boyd, like he did at the RPLAC Organizational Meeting last December. One exchange I heard about was new RPLAC Chairman Glen Forsch advising Doug Boyd that he should lead the caucus meeting as the RPLAC Chairman. After advising Glen that not only was this a conflict of interest, that the meeting would be led by CRP National Committeeman Shawn Steel and Republican State Senator George Runner, there was no further word or action from either Glen or his mentor, Carl, and the nomination & election process went fast.
Personally, this effort to exert some political muscle in Los Angeles County is going to start the quick descent of what little influence the current RPLAC Board has. The current RPLAC board has no elected legislative allies, and only a few rumored and undisclosed donors who are "waiting" to see whether this board can deliver. If Glen and his team do not quickly begin the healing process from the gashes caused by their RPLAC take-over, they are going to find re-energized and well-funded opposition to their seats on both the Executive Board and to their re-elections to central committee seats or ex-oficio positions. Republican Central Committee filings begin in just 12 months...
To wrap up the convention highlights, I think every Republican upset with the state budget deal should take heart that your party delegates and internal party leadership is also upset, and is planning to hold every elected legislator, candidate and fellow delegate accountable for the primary principle that binds us all together: Californians are already taxed the highest in the country, and it's time for that to change!
(Here's the link to the article: (http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_11752966?source=rss)
Well, friends, I'm writing to say that I was very proud of how unified our party delegates became this weekend. At the previous conventions I've attended, we've spent hours debating what I will now call secondary issues, including illegal immigration, abortion, gay marriage & affordable housing development. I'm not saying those topics are not important; but every delegate I talked to this weekend, whether from the CA Republican Assembly, the Log Cabin Republicans, the CA Congress of Republicans or the CA College Republicans, firmly agreed that our party's number one mission is to protect the California tax-payer. To his credit, Assemblymember Anthony Adams walked across the street from the Assembly hall to the Sacramento Hyatt to talk to delegates and address why he felt that approving this budget was the right choice. Fellow delegate Matt Kauble and I had a solid 20 minutes to ourselves with Adams, and kept it cordial yet engaging, despite the numerous gestures behind his back by delegates passing by us! (You can imagine what they looked like...) Adams talked about Moody ratings, liquidity, and other financial topics to test our knowledge. Matt is a finance controller, so I let Matt lead the engagement and I simply jumped in with inconsistencies. Adams stated that he would be willing to come down to L.A. County to address Republicans regarding this decision and to basically "take his lumps". I give him a lot of credit and respect for walking across the street and talking to whomever approached him. The other five were conveniently too busy to meet with fellow Republicans at their own convention and explain their actions. Of the five, it was to be expected of State Senator Abel Maldonado, who basically negotiated in his own political agenda into the bill in order to get his approval. Delegates throughout the party have reached a boiling point with these sell-outs, and were ready to hold all six accountable.
And they proved it on Sunday...
The only resolution forwarded to the delegates to consider was to withhold any party funding for re-election of the six Republican legislators that made the unfortunate and misguides decision to vote for the budget. As you can imagine, it was overwhelmingly and loudly approved.
At the Sunday general session, Republican Assemblyman, U.S. Senate candidate & my good friend Chuck DeVore regretted that he would not be able to spent his allotted ten minutes talking about how he was ready to defeat and retire Barbara Boxer, but he gave the delegates the details of what happened in the Assembly and his pledge to continue fighting the Democrats and misguided Republicans. State Senator Jeff Denham, who was targeted for a recall defeated by over 73% last year in a district formerly drawn for Democrats because he refused to stop attacking the Democrats on the budget over-spending issue, announced that not only is he not going away, he's running for Lieutenant Governor. (Here's a real opportunity to tell the special interests that they do not control Sacramento!) And Board of Equalization Member Bill Leonard offered an idea to beat the 2-year 1% sales tax hike coming on April 1st: Go out now and purchase two years worth of as many household items as you can! Should be easy for Costco and Sam's Club members!
The budget issue overshadowed the usual drama of the February convention, the election of chairman, vice-chairman and regional chairs for the CRP. However, the strength of the incumbents, including Chairman Ron Nehring and Vice-Chairman Tom Del Baccaro, allowed for delegates to discuss the gubernatorial race between Insurance Commissioner Stave Poizner and "new Republican" and former E-bay CEO Meg Whitman. The only drama for Los Angeles County was at our regional Vice-Chair caucus meeting Saturday morning, where the question was whether former RPLAC chairman, Dr. Carl Davis, was engineering another surprise candidate to oppose incumbent L.A. County Regional Vice-Chair Doug Boyd, like he did at the RPLAC Organizational Meeting last December. One exchange I heard about was new RPLAC Chairman Glen Forsch advising Doug Boyd that he should lead the caucus meeting as the RPLAC Chairman. After advising Glen that not only was this a conflict of interest, that the meeting would be led by CRP National Committeeman Shawn Steel and Republican State Senator George Runner, there was no further word or action from either Glen or his mentor, Carl, and the nomination & election process went fast.
Personally, this effort to exert some political muscle in Los Angeles County is going to start the quick descent of what little influence the current RPLAC Board has. The current RPLAC board has no elected legislative allies, and only a few rumored and undisclosed donors who are "waiting" to see whether this board can deliver. If Glen and his team do not quickly begin the healing process from the gashes caused by their RPLAC take-over, they are going to find re-energized and well-funded opposition to their seats on both the Executive Board and to their re-elections to central committee seats or ex-oficio positions. Republican Central Committee filings begin in just 12 months...
To wrap up the convention highlights, I think every Republican upset with the state budget deal should take heart that your party delegates and internal party leadership is also upset, and is planning to hold every elected legislator, candidate and fellow delegate accountable for the primary principle that binds us all together: Californians are already taxed the highest in the country, and it's time for that to change!
Friday, February 6, 2009
Laura Chick: Will Vote "NO" on Measure B
I've written before about both the intelligence and the principled nature of the Honorable Laura Chick, the Los Angeles City Controller. If there is one elected official that can claim the title "honorable", it's Laura. Time and time again, our city controller has stood up for fiscal accountability from all of our city agencies and departments, even when it may not have always been politically popular to do so. I'm sure there are issues that I disagree with Laura on, given her choice to register with the left party over the right. However, I have always preached the political philosophy of knowing your values, including at which elected level each value should have heavier weights, and for city government, the values of fiscal accountability and protecting citizens come before positions on the War on Terrorism and Abortion. On the city government level, I wholeheartedly support City Controller Laura Chick and other Democrats like her who "get it".
During a press briefing yesterday on the status of the Department of Water and Power yesterday, Laura Chick announced that she would oppose Measure B, the sole-source solar energy project on the March ballot.
The consultant group that completed the city charter-required 5-year analysis, PA Consulting, was also the group that completed the initial objective analysis on Measure B, and they defended their projections that the measure would cost two to three times the current estimates being reported by the replacement consultant group, Huron Consulting. The report from Andrew Rea of PA Consulting Group estimated that Measure B would cost up to $3.6 billion, far more than the $1 billion estimate by Huron Consulting, hired by the Department of Water and Power after rejecting the PA Consulting analysis.
As reported by Rick Orlov of the L.A. Daily News:
"Rea said he made more conservative assumptions in his study, while the DWP's own report by Huron Consulting made more optimistic assumptions about the future of technology and the economy.
"We modeled the world using prices today, projects today and the technology we thought was deployable," Rea said.
"The Huron Report assumed a much more favorable economic climate and much more favorable technology. I think Huron did a report based on what the future might be and developed its figures based on that."
Measure B would require the installation of solar panels around the city with a goal of generating 400 megawatts of rooftop solar power by 2014. The Huron report estimated its cost at $1 billion, which would be about $1 a month for the average residential DWP bill. Michael Trujillo, manager of the campaign to support Measure B, stood by the accuracy of the Huron report and its assumptions. "All the recent figures show that the cost of solar is declining as the technology improves," said Trujillo.
As the PA Consulting report was officially released, Chick announced she would oppose Measure B. "I support renewable energy. I have been supporting it since I was elected controller in 2002," Chick said. "We know this will cost something, but the costs are unknown. I will be voting no on this because I think the entire process of how it ended up on the ballot stinks. I think it was not done in an open, understandable or thoughtful way."
Measure B was developed by a group known as Working Californians, which included leaders of local IBEW unions. One provision of the measure would require all the installation work to be done only by those unions.
The PA Consulting survey, conducted over six months at a cost of $800,000, made a series of broad recommendations - many similar to a survey conducted in 2002 - calling for the DWP to do better in long-term planning and upgrading its information technology systems.
One of those I talk to frequently about Measure B made this interesting observation: If the Huron Consulting report was indeed true that the average increase per electric bill was only 1%/month, the DWP would fall way too short in raising the necessary funds even for their $1B project estimate. Here's how the math works:
12 months X 1.6 million DWP ratepayers = 19.2 million rate-months
At 19.2 million rate-months per year, it would take the DWP over $52/ratepayer per month to raise the funds in one year. This assumes that every ratepayer is paying for full service and that no one is on discounted programs. The average monthly household electricity bill was $52.79 in fall 2006, according to DWP spokesman Joe Ramallo last April. By summer 2010, the various rate hikes and surcharges will bring the bill to $65.04, he said. So even with the low-ball estimates by the DWP, the mathematical analysis shows that the average energy bill for every rate-payer has to be doubled in order to fund this measure.
Factor in the more objective analysis of the PA Consulting group, and we're talking about tripling, or even quadrupling, of energy rates to pay for this boondoggle project.
This is what I believe Laura Chick gets that other Democrats do not. This is the analysis I wish my friend LAUSD Board member Richard Vladovic would have done, or asked those he knows and trusts, including Dr. Soledad Garcia, who has been very open and public about both opposing Measure B and in requesting our local elected officials to contact her regarding this measure. With Laura Chick's announced opposition to this measure, I hope both Richard Vladovic & Councilmember Janice Hahn do the right thing and request a meeting with Soledad Garcia. They know how to reach her, or they can contact me.
So the bottom line on Measure B is this - Despite the initial report by PA Consulting months prior to the submission of this ballot measure to the city council that the estimated cost would be between $2.8 and $3.6 billion, the DWP and the IBEW rammed this boondoggle project measure through the city council, and our city council did the typical pandering thing and voted to put it on the ballot. Now, many of them are saying that they did not vote to support it, just to put it on the ballot. I look at it like parents serving their children dinner.
It is my job and my wife's to ensure our children eat healthy. If we feel something will be unhealthy, or worse - will make our kids sick, we don't put it on their plate and then absolve ourselves of the responsibility by saying "they don't have to eat it". Our kids trust us, and will eat the unhealthy foods, especially given how these foods are marketed to our kids. Measure B is extremely unhealthy, and our city council members need to be protecting us from ever having to digest it. They need to protect their constituents from the marketing of this unhealthy measure, and should be held accountable for their lack of action or their endorsement of it.
Measure B is about as healthy as a deep-fried Twinkie to someone with high cholesterol!
During a press briefing yesterday on the status of the Department of Water and Power yesterday, Laura Chick announced that she would oppose Measure B, the sole-source solar energy project on the March ballot.
The consultant group that completed the city charter-required 5-year analysis, PA Consulting, was also the group that completed the initial objective analysis on Measure B, and they defended their projections that the measure would cost two to three times the current estimates being reported by the replacement consultant group, Huron Consulting. The report from Andrew Rea of PA Consulting Group estimated that Measure B would cost up to $3.6 billion, far more than the $1 billion estimate by Huron Consulting, hired by the Department of Water and Power after rejecting the PA Consulting analysis.
As reported by Rick Orlov of the L.A. Daily News:
"Rea said he made more conservative assumptions in his study, while the DWP's own report by Huron Consulting made more optimistic assumptions about the future of technology and the economy.
"We modeled the world using prices today, projects today and the technology we thought was deployable," Rea said.
"The Huron Report assumed a much more favorable economic climate and much more favorable technology. I think Huron did a report based on what the future might be and developed its figures based on that."
Measure B would require the installation of solar panels around the city with a goal of generating 400 megawatts of rooftop solar power by 2014. The Huron report estimated its cost at $1 billion, which would be about $1 a month for the average residential DWP bill. Michael Trujillo, manager of the campaign to support Measure B, stood by the accuracy of the Huron report and its assumptions. "All the recent figures show that the cost of solar is declining as the technology improves," said Trujillo.
As the PA Consulting report was officially released, Chick announced she would oppose Measure B. "I support renewable energy. I have been supporting it since I was elected controller in 2002," Chick said. "We know this will cost something, but the costs are unknown. I will be voting no on this because I think the entire process of how it ended up on the ballot stinks. I think it was not done in an open, understandable or thoughtful way."
Measure B was developed by a group known as Working Californians, which included leaders of local IBEW unions. One provision of the measure would require all the installation work to be done only by those unions.
The PA Consulting survey, conducted over six months at a cost of $800,000, made a series of broad recommendations - many similar to a survey conducted in 2002 - calling for the DWP to do better in long-term planning and upgrading its information technology systems.
One of those I talk to frequently about Measure B made this interesting observation: If the Huron Consulting report was indeed true that the average increase per electric bill was only 1%/month, the DWP would fall way too short in raising the necessary funds even for their $1B project estimate. Here's how the math works:
12 months X 1.6 million DWP ratepayers = 19.2 million rate-months
At 19.2 million rate-months per year, it would take the DWP over $52/ratepayer per month to raise the funds in one year. This assumes that every ratepayer is paying for full service and that no one is on discounted programs. The average monthly household electricity bill was $52.79 in fall 2006, according to DWP spokesman Joe Ramallo last April. By summer 2010, the various rate hikes and surcharges will bring the bill to $65.04, he said. So even with the low-ball estimates by the DWP, the mathematical analysis shows that the average energy bill for every rate-payer has to be doubled in order to fund this measure.
Factor in the more objective analysis of the PA Consulting group, and we're talking about tripling, or even quadrupling, of energy rates to pay for this boondoggle project.
This is what I believe Laura Chick gets that other Democrats do not. This is the analysis I wish my friend LAUSD Board member Richard Vladovic would have done, or asked those he knows and trusts, including Dr. Soledad Garcia, who has been very open and public about both opposing Measure B and in requesting our local elected officials to contact her regarding this measure. With Laura Chick's announced opposition to this measure, I hope both Richard Vladovic & Councilmember Janice Hahn do the right thing and request a meeting with Soledad Garcia. They know how to reach her, or they can contact me.
So the bottom line on Measure B is this - Despite the initial report by PA Consulting months prior to the submission of this ballot measure to the city council that the estimated cost would be between $2.8 and $3.6 billion, the DWP and the IBEW rammed this boondoggle project measure through the city council, and our city council did the typical pandering thing and voted to put it on the ballot. Now, many of them are saying that they did not vote to support it, just to put it on the ballot. I look at it like parents serving their children dinner.
It is my job and my wife's to ensure our children eat healthy. If we feel something will be unhealthy, or worse - will make our kids sick, we don't put it on their plate and then absolve ourselves of the responsibility by saying "they don't have to eat it". Our kids trust us, and will eat the unhealthy foods, especially given how these foods are marketed to our kids. Measure B is extremely unhealthy, and our city council members need to be protecting us from ever having to digest it. They need to protect their constituents from the marketing of this unhealthy measure, and should be held accountable for their lack of action or their endorsement of it.
Measure B is about as healthy as a deep-fried Twinkie to someone with high cholesterol!
Thursday, February 5, 2009
How many bad nominees does it take to change an administration?
I'm forwarding an update from the Weekly Standard about yet ANOTHER cabinet nominee with issues to address. This one is relevant to us because it's our own Hilda Solis, union champion and Democratic Congressmember from East Los Angeles. Add Ms. Solis' name to that of the nominees that had to learn how to do their taxes, and we're starting to see what kind of "change" is truly coming to DC.
Thursday, February 05, 2009 By: Hans A. von Spakovsky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A seemingly innocuous letter sent to the Clerk of the House of Representatives last Thursday by President Obama's Secretary of Labor nominee Hilda Solis raises serious and troubling legal questions about her nomination and apparent violation of House ethics rules. Not only was she involved with a private organization that was lobbying her fellow legislators on a bill that she has cosponsored, but she apparently kept her involvement secret and failed to reveal a clear conflict of interest.
Solis was a co-sponsor in 2007 of the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act," the card check legislation that would effectively eliminate the secret ballot and destroy the ability of employees to make an anonymous decision (without fear of retribution) on whether they want to join a union. She was also a co-sponsor of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, legislation that would force states to allow public safety officers to form unions. At the same time, however, Solis was a board member of a pro-union organization, American Rights at Work, that has been lobbying Congress on both of these bills. According to a letter filed by Solis with the House Clerk on January 29, 2009, she was not just a director of the ARW, along with fellow travelers like David Bonior, Julian Bond, and John Sweeney, she was actually the treasurer. In other words, she is the official legally charged with the fiduciary duty of approving and signing off on all spending by the organization. And to make matters worse, she did not reveal to her colleagues in the House of Representatives that membership on her financial disclosure forms, which may constitute a separate ethical violation.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics and a review of the lobbying disclosure forms filed with Congress, ARW spent $110,000 in 2007 and $120,000 in 2008 on lobbying expenses. And what were the "[s]pecific lobbying issues" listed on the forms? They included the "Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800/S. 1041)" and the "Public Safety /Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007 (H.R. 980)." As treasurer of ARW, Solis would have approved the spending by ARW on lobbying other members of Congress on both of these bills she was sponsoring for passage.
The Ethics Manual of the House of Representatives quite properly restricts the lobbying of members, stating on page 352 that they should not "take an active role in lobbying Congress on behalf of a private organization since that would conflict with a Member's general obligation to the public." That rule may be murky in some instances, but the role Solis played in ARW's lobbying efforts was not passive. In answering written follow-up questions from the Senate about ARW, Solis tries to cloud the real issue by arguing that members of Congress are allowed to serve without compensation on the boards of nonprofit organizations and that the lobbying prohibition only applies if she was "personally" supervising the lobbying.
However, the House rule turns on whether Solis was an active participant in the lobbying effort. With regard to that question, Solis admitted that she is not merely a board member of ARW. Treasurers and general counsels have special fiduciary duties that differentiate them from mere directors. The treasurer of a nonprofit organization is responsible for actively supervising and approving the financial obligations and spending of the organization. In fact, the amended by-laws of ARW filed with its 2006 form 990 tax return specify that the treasurer must "ensure that there is [a] full and accurate account of the receipts and disbursements of the corporation" and must render to the President and the Board of Directors "an accounting of all transactions." This means that Solis was specifically charged with reporting all of the funds spent by ARW to lobby Congress. That is not the passive role of other Board members.
Solis apparently did not consult the House Ethics Committee about the propriety of serving as the treasurer of ARW. Worse, she didn't list ARW on her financial disclosure forms. She belatedly sent her letter of January 29 to the Clerk of the House attempting to amend her financial statements to add her membership in ARW. She claimed that she had "incorrectly answered" the question on membership in such outside organizations. Solis told the Clerk that she should have answered "yes" and that she was both a board member and the treasurer of ARW from 2004 -2007. She is still listed as a board member at the ARW website.
Barack Obama made a big show at the White House on his first day in office when he signed an executive order supposedly restricting the ability of former lobbyists hired by his administration from working on issues that they had previously lobbied on. Of course, he almost immediately ignored those principles when he nominated William Lynn, a Raytheon lobbyist, to be deputy secretary of the Department of Defense, named William Corr, an anti-tobacco lobbyist, to be deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, and allowed newly installed Treasury Secretary (and tax defaulter) Timothy Geitner to hire a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist to be his new chief of staff.
Now he has a nominee for Labor Secretary who apparently broke House ethics rules by lobbying for legislation that she sponsored, but who did not admit that she failed to reveal that fact on her financial disclosure forms until after her nomination became an issue. Even if the House tries to paper over this ethical lapse, the blatant conflict of interest will remain. Solis has been nominated to head a cabinet department that would directly oversee the very issues that the legislation that she sponsored would affect if it passes Congress -- and the card check legislation alone is considered the number one priority of American labor organizations.
Throughout his Presidential campaign, Barack Obama claimed the moral high ground on everything from campaign finances to lobbying, and he has continued to talk that way in the first month of his presidency. But actions speak louder than words, particularly when your actions are in direct conflict with the supposedly "high ethical standards" you keep claiming you are implementing. If President Obama does not recognize the serious ethical lapses committed by his nominee for the Labor Department, then it will be proof positive that for all of his talk of bringing change to Washington, the only change will have been in the wrong direction.
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a former Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and a Justice Department official.
© The Weekly Standard
Thursday, February 05, 2009 By: Hans A. von Spakovsky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A seemingly innocuous letter sent to the Clerk of the House of Representatives last Thursday by President Obama's Secretary of Labor nominee Hilda Solis raises serious and troubling legal questions about her nomination and apparent violation of House ethics rules. Not only was she involved with a private organization that was lobbying her fellow legislators on a bill that she has cosponsored, but she apparently kept her involvement secret and failed to reveal a clear conflict of interest.
Solis was a co-sponsor in 2007 of the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act," the card check legislation that would effectively eliminate the secret ballot and destroy the ability of employees to make an anonymous decision (without fear of retribution) on whether they want to join a union. She was also a co-sponsor of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, legislation that would force states to allow public safety officers to form unions. At the same time, however, Solis was a board member of a pro-union organization, American Rights at Work, that has been lobbying Congress on both of these bills. According to a letter filed by Solis with the House Clerk on January 29, 2009, she was not just a director of the ARW, along with fellow travelers like David Bonior, Julian Bond, and John Sweeney, she was actually the treasurer. In other words, she is the official legally charged with the fiduciary duty of approving and signing off on all spending by the organization. And to make matters worse, she did not reveal to her colleagues in the House of Representatives that membership on her financial disclosure forms, which may constitute a separate ethical violation.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics and a review of the lobbying disclosure forms filed with Congress, ARW spent $110,000 in 2007 and $120,000 in 2008 on lobbying expenses. And what were the "[s]pecific lobbying issues" listed on the forms? They included the "Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800/S. 1041)" and the "Public Safety /Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007 (H.R. 980)." As treasurer of ARW, Solis would have approved the spending by ARW on lobbying other members of Congress on both of these bills she was sponsoring for passage.
The Ethics Manual of the House of Representatives quite properly restricts the lobbying of members, stating on page 352 that they should not "take an active role in lobbying Congress on behalf of a private organization since that would conflict with a Member's general obligation to the public." That rule may be murky in some instances, but the role Solis played in ARW's lobbying efforts was not passive. In answering written follow-up questions from the Senate about ARW, Solis tries to cloud the real issue by arguing that members of Congress are allowed to serve without compensation on the boards of nonprofit organizations and that the lobbying prohibition only applies if she was "personally" supervising the lobbying.
However, the House rule turns on whether Solis was an active participant in the lobbying effort. With regard to that question, Solis admitted that she is not merely a board member of ARW. Treasurers and general counsels have special fiduciary duties that differentiate them from mere directors. The treasurer of a nonprofit organization is responsible for actively supervising and approving the financial obligations and spending of the organization. In fact, the amended by-laws of ARW filed with its 2006 form 990 tax return specify that the treasurer must "ensure that there is [a] full and accurate account of the receipts and disbursements of the corporation" and must render to the President and the Board of Directors "an accounting of all transactions." This means that Solis was specifically charged with reporting all of the funds spent by ARW to lobby Congress. That is not the passive role of other Board members.
Solis apparently did not consult the House Ethics Committee about the propriety of serving as the treasurer of ARW. Worse, she didn't list ARW on her financial disclosure forms. She belatedly sent her letter of January 29 to the Clerk of the House attempting to amend her financial statements to add her membership in ARW. She claimed that she had "incorrectly answered" the question on membership in such outside organizations. Solis told the Clerk that she should have answered "yes" and that she was both a board member and the treasurer of ARW from 2004 -2007. She is still listed as a board member at the ARW website.
Barack Obama made a big show at the White House on his first day in office when he signed an executive order supposedly restricting the ability of former lobbyists hired by his administration from working on issues that they had previously lobbied on. Of course, he almost immediately ignored those principles when he nominated William Lynn, a Raytheon lobbyist, to be deputy secretary of the Department of Defense, named William Corr, an anti-tobacco lobbyist, to be deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, and allowed newly installed Treasury Secretary (and tax defaulter) Timothy Geitner to hire a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist to be his new chief of staff.
Now he has a nominee for Labor Secretary who apparently broke House ethics rules by lobbying for legislation that she sponsored, but who did not admit that she failed to reveal that fact on her financial disclosure forms until after her nomination became an issue. Even if the House tries to paper over this ethical lapse, the blatant conflict of interest will remain. Solis has been nominated to head a cabinet department that would directly oversee the very issues that the legislation that she sponsored would affect if it passes Congress -- and the card check legislation alone is considered the number one priority of American labor organizations.
Throughout his Presidential campaign, Barack Obama claimed the moral high ground on everything from campaign finances to lobbying, and he has continued to talk that way in the first month of his presidency. But actions speak louder than words, particularly when your actions are in direct conflict with the supposedly "high ethical standards" you keep claiming you are implementing. If President Obama does not recognize the serious ethical lapses committed by his nominee for the Labor Department, then it will be proof positive that for all of his talk of bringing change to Washington, the only change will have been in the wrong direction.
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a former Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and a Justice Department official.
© The Weekly Standard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
